click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130117
20130125
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
, the folks that were elected with us, the senators that have arrived in the last five or ten years. i think we have the ability to respond in a big, bold way to the crises that face us. and i know senator merkley, you came here a young man with senator hatfield i believe and you saw a different senate. maybe you could talk about that and we don't want to stay, i know we're going to a caucus and we have our generous chair here, so we don't want to keep her up there too long, our presiding officer. anyway, senator merkley, i yield. mr. merkley: i think my colleague from new mexico is absolutely right in pointing out there were periods when the senate really worked to address the big issues facing america. and it wawnltd that there weren't -- wasn't that there weren't profound differences. there were fierce differences, emotional differences, deep differences but folks came to this floor, they conversed, they laid out their arguments and ultimately they made decisions about which way to go. and they didn't bring the attitude let's just paralyze this chamber from doing doing nothing. had they d
are up for re-election in north carolina or out west or down south or wherever they're from, i don't think he can lift it. and can that's what i'm talking about in terms of overreach. if this was something where you said close the loophole on gun shows, catch the 40% of people who are going into the shows and escaping, buying guns if they're mentally disturbed and we should catch that and reasonable restrictions. the problem in the heller case and what d.c. was doing is they said you couldn't have a gun unless you registered it, but then today wouldn't let you register it. i mean, that's an effective you can't do it. and that does, in fact, go too far. so if it's a common sense -- and, you know, quite frankly, i don't know why ten. i don't know why somebody needs ten bullets, let alone thirty. so ten doesn't seem like some magic number to me. and, again, to the gun owners, that sounds like something somebody made up, ten. so i think that the president'stive orders -- executive orders can be accepted by the republican party, and if they did the incremental approach of background che
they're worried about their elections. i think that in the center of the country and the red states where these senators are running, they don't think that the president's message works, and they're going to try to move themselves away from that because they're worried about it. they're worried about all these -- >> we're talking about the majority of the country though. if the majority is with the president, is he too liberal? that's what i'm asking. can you call the guy too left when he's right where the middle is? how can you keep saying that? it's the only question i want to put to you. if more than 50% support equality of marriage, more than 50% support a woman's right to choose, if more than 50% are with him on guns and foreign policy, how can you call that the far left? >> let me put it this way, the fact of the matter is this is going to be politically very problematic for harry reid because for the constituency he represents in the senate, they're not going to be able to get a lot of things that the president wants done because it's too far to the left of him. for example,
her outburst is not an outburst. it's a re-election flection of l think about this. if you were going to be real about these issues you would be asking what can we do to beef up the security. something gop members have already cut, you know, and they have decisions to cut it now in these days as we're speaking. it's rank hypocrisy. i think it's a fresh breath of air that people -- >> i agree with you about the hypocrisy because i remember 9/11 very clearly and i remember how this country rallied around a president who had limited ability but we all rallied around him. the first reaction was he says we're going to get the people who knocked down this building and everybody cheered him. they weren't saying how did you screw it up buddy. it was about unit. the left and center are much better at national unity than the right. the right sees a national tragedy like this far off in bengha benghazi, not in new york city, at a very exposed position which could have happened no matter how many troops he would there. we don't blame it on everybody even know it was new york right into the heart
. >> my colleague and i went to chicago. this was in the midst of the election and picked up opposition research prepared by jack ryan, obama's onetime republican senate point. he found all this information. the way he frames it, and i think it's probably right, is that obama was always very soft on crime but very tough on guns. every time obama had a crime vote to take when he was in the illinois state senate, he always voted "present" because he didn't want to -- for two reasons. one, he said that criminal law disproportionately affected african-americans. he saw a racial component there. additionally, he said i don't want to clog the court system with all these cases. what do you want to clog the court system with? we thought given his rhetoric on guns lately it would be interesting to bring up this vote where he said i don't want to give tougher prosecution to children who shoot in schools. >>steve: you look at chicago, one of the murder capitals of the world. nothing the president proposed the other day would crack down on handgun violence in chicago. there is one other thing we wa
is working and in fact, it wasn't working. it helped get this president re-elected by misleading the american public, but now, the chickens are coming home to roost and we're going to continue to pursue this until we find the truth. >> i want to ask you one other question based on what your republican colleague rand paul said today. it was a pretty strong statement. here he is. >> had i been president at the time and i found that you did not read the cables from benghazi, you did not read the cables from ambassador stevens, i would have relieved you of you post. i think it's inexcusable. >> do you agree? >> i'd say the issue is moot because hillary clinton is moving on and senator kerry's stepping up to the plate probably, so that's rand paul's opinion. >> do you think she'd make a good president? i have to ask that because 67% of this country view her favorably. her unfavorable is 28%. the president, anybody in this country, would die for that. >> listen, the people on the other side of the aisle aren't taking the fact this nation's going bankrupt seriously, so she's a member of that party,
for re-election in 2014. >> do you vote based upon one issue or do you look at a variety of issues? same thing about the issue of choice. there are some people out there who say i am only going to vote based upon whether or not you are pro-choice or pro-life. those are single voter issues. when you look at polling data, you don't have a significant number of single issue voters in america. they are saying, hey, i might be for same-sex marriage or against it or pro-life or pro-choice, if it's about finances, i might choose a different decision. >> i want to thank roland for making my point for me. president obama is engaging in what we like to call hubris. george w. bush and karl rove thought they had a permanent majority. it wasn't that permanent. ronald reagan's majority didn't last forever either. the simple truth is the more successful you are when you win a big victory, it also means democrats are representing silicon valley billionaires and struggling immigrants in the inner city. you represent both of those groups, there are tensions in your coalition and that coalition you win one
to protect six democrats who are up for election in two years from now. six seats where the president had fewer than 42% of the votes and i don't think so that they're going to expose the democrats to having to choose between their constituents who know the value and importance of the second amendment and the president's policies. >> steve: what do you think of what mitch mcconnell said in the robo call that went out to several thousand kentuckiens, to make sure he'll do everything in his power to defeat it. >> we know what that means, it has to do with individual's rights to own and bear arms, you know, which is one of the reasons that i've had disagreements with the attorney general, who thinks it has to do only with the well-regulated militia, but i'm a doctor. i know there's much more to this than just what's happening in gun shows or gun shelves. so if the president wants to push a political agenda, if he actually wants to solve a problem of violence in america, there are things that we can do as a doctor, i will tell you this, with regard to mental health, with regard to a culture o
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)